Althouse: Trump said, "The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there."

January 3, 2019

Trump said, "The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there."

I'm reading that at "Warren Endorses Afghanistan Withdrawal As Trump Spews Soviet Propaganda About the Country" (Reason).

Is anyone defending Trump's statement? I'd like to hear something substantial. It's Soviet propaganda seems to be a kneejerk reaction. I'm withholding judgment other than to say maybe Trump means "They were right" from their own perspective, taking their national interests seriously, which seems to be generally what he says other countries should be doing as he puts his own country's interests first.

ADDED: Here's Elizabeth Warren talking about Syria and Afghanistan with Rachel Maddow last night:

156 comments:

JohnAnnArbor said...: Master of distraction; they'll chew on this forever. The same kind of people who told us during the Cold War how the Russians loved their children too and we were big meanies to them by electing Reagan.

My understanding was that the Soviet-Afghan thing was more of a garden-variety support-the-Marxist-regime-on-your-border-that's-barely-holding-on thing, perhaps to avoid a failed state (unsuccessful there) with anarchic countryside that could cause cross-border trouble (successful there only because the Russians lost the -stans in the breakup of the USSR. Like magic, no Afghanistan on the border anymore).

Once the countryside didn't answer to the center, some sort of terrorism was inevitable. See: Libya, Somalia, etc.; 1/3/19, 12:43 PM
Earnest Prole said...: Surely this is an old Barack Obama or George McGovern quote.; 1/3/19, 12:47 PM
Henry said...: Good for Senator Warren for supporting Trump's withdrawal proposal.; 1/3/19, 12:52 PM
Limited blogger said...: Warren endorsing Trump's withdrawal from Afghanistan? Good for her.; 1/3/19, 12:53 PM
Drago said...: No different than the lefties defending Turkey's attacks on Kurdish groups in Syria that the Turks assert are terrorists.; 1/3/19, 12:58 PM
Spiros Pappas said...: Osama bin Laden went to Afghanistan to help finance and train fighters for the mujahideen. These people were fighting Soviet forces deployed to support Afghanistan's communist government. So what is so alarming or disturbing about Mr. Trump's statements?; 1/3/19, 12:58 PM
readering said...: Stalin went into Poland in response to Hitler's invasion. What's so disturbing about approving Hitler's invasion of Poland?; 1/3/19, 1:00 PM
Qwinn said...: The Soviets went into Afghanistan because it was between them and a warm water port to Afghanistan's south. Russia had no other warm water port. Getting one has always been a high priority to them.

That said, it's possible the terrorist thing was a secondary motivation.; 1/3/19, 1:00 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia.

As I remember, that indeed was the Soviet Union's reason.; 1/3/19, 1:00 PM
Qwinn said...: The Soviets went into Afghanistan because it was between them and a warm water port to Afghanistan's south. Russia had no other warm water port. Getting one has always been a high priority to them.

That said, it's possible the terrorist thing was a secondary motivation.; 1/3/19, 1:01 PM
readering said...: Glad Althouse withholding judgment on Trump's USSR history lesson. I what her to focus her analytic powers on his GOT poster in front of him.; 1/3/19, 1:02 PM
Drago said...: JohnAnnArbor: "My understanding was that the Soviet-Afghan thing was more of a garden-variety support-the-Marxist-regime-on-your-border-that's-barely-holding-on thing,..."

It was much more than that.

It was a strategic move designed to consolidate and stabiluze Afghanistan sufficiently so it could be used as a base operations for influencing Iran directly which the Soviets hoped could be leveraged long-term into Soviet/Persian Gulf warm water ports and strategic chokepoint control of the Straits of Hormuz.

Alas, the best laid plans..; 1/3/19, 1:02 PM
Gospace said...: Trump's policies, all of them, so far, seem to boil down to this: America and Americans first.

Afghanistan pretty much has no effect on the USA, no matter what happens there. Russia? Well, not so much. So if the Russian government's policy is "Russia and Russians first".... Well, the Russia of today doesn't border on Afghanistan, but only because the USSR broke up.

But let's face it. No one, including all our educated and sophisticated diplomats, really has any idea what's going on in all those 'Stans just north of Afghanistan that used to be part of the USSR. They all have central governments, but do those governments actually rule in the hinterlands? We know there's really no such thing as the Afghanistan nation. There's a collection of tribes and clans headed by chiefs and chieftains in a geographic area the West has labeled Afghanistan.; 1/3/19, 1:06 PM
RNB said...: "Stalin went into Poland in response to Hitler's invasion." Stalin went into eastern Poland because he and Hitler had already divvied up Poland between them in the secret codicils of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before the first panzer ever rolled into Poland.; 1/3/19, 1:06 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: That was certainly part of the reason - the Soviets had significant issues with Islamic terrorists; 1/3/19, 1:06 PM
readering said...: Try an online search on the Afghan based terrorist threat to the Soviet Union in 1970s.; 1/3/19, 1:08 PM
Nonapod said...: When did Reason magazine turn into such a bunch of war mongering neocons?; 1/3/19, 1:12 PM
tim in vermont said...: Well, they probably had a terror problem because they had installed a commie government there. This is the kind of nonsense that gets him in so much trouble. Not enough trouble to overturn an election and install a member of the Uniparty, but still.; 1/3/19, 1:14 PM
Scott said...: What if knee-jerk reactions were actually physical? CNN news shows would look like they were choreographed by Michael Flatley.; 1/3/19, 1:16 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: My comment at 1:00 PM
As I remember, that indeed was the Soviet Union's reason.

I retract my statement.

The USSR's official statement about its intervention in Afghanistan

For a long time interference in the internal affairs of a neighboring state friendly to the Soviet Union, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, has been taking place from abroad, including the direct use of armed force. The goal of such interference -- and this is evident to everyone -- is the overthrown of the democratic system established as a result of the 1978 April Revolution. The Afghan people and its armed forces are actively repelling these aggressive acts and rebuffing attempts on the democratic gains of recent years, the sovereignty and national dignity of the new Afghanistan.

However the acts of external aggression have not ceased and have acquired every greater dimension; armed formations and weapons continue to be sent from abroad to Afghanistan.

In the face of gross foreign interference, including armed interference, the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan has repeatedly turned to the Soviet Union in the last two years with a request to help the Afghan people repel aggression.

The Soviet Union expected that the enemies of people's Afghanistan would all the same listen to the warnings of the Afghan and Soviet sides, manage to heed the voice of reason, and cease further attempts to suppress the freedom and independence of the Afghan people by force of arms. However, this did not happen. The foreign interference and aggression started to take on all the more intolerable forms and dimensions for the Afghan people.

Under these conditions the government of Afghanistan again turned to the Soviet Union with an urgent request to give aid and assistance in the fight against external aggression. The Soviet Union, proceeding from a commonality of the interests of both countries on security issues, which were also recorded in the 5 December 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighborliness, and Cooperation, and the interests of preserving peace in this region, has responded favorably to this request of the government of Afghanistan and decided to send limited military contingents to Afghanistan to perform missions which the government of Afghanistan is requesting, that is, missions of an exclusively of assisting in repelling foreign aggression. The Soviet Union thereby also proceeds from the corresponding provisions of the UN Charter, particularly Article 51, stipulating the right of countries to individual and collective self-defense in order to repel aggression and restore peace.

Of course, when the necessity and the reasons which occasioned this action of the Soviet Union pass, it will carry out a complete withdrawal of Soviet military contingents from Afghan territory. As before, the desire of the Soviet Union is to see Afghanistan independent and sovereign, following a policy of good neighborliness and peace, and firmly respecting and fulfilling its international obligations, including those according to the UN Charter.; 1/3/19, 1:18 PM
tim in vermont said...: We should have just bombed the living shit out of them for a bit, and not let bin Laden get out of Tora Bora, but that’s water under the bridge now. The only valid reason for war there was “Pour decourager les autres."; 1/3/19, 1:19 PM
realestateacct said...: I annoyed a lot of people by expressing the opinion that the Russians were fully justified in what they were doing in Chechneya in the early part of this century. I don't know enough about Afghanistan in the 80's. My only information comes from a Rambo movie which was sympathetic to the Muslim rebels.; 1/3/19, 1:19 PM
Kevin said...: All the Dem candidates are now free to support the troop withdrawal because Trump is going to have it done before they can take office.

If you can't lead the parade, jump in front of it.; 1/3/19, 1:21 PM
JAORE said...: We have to plan this out and talk to our allies....

Lots of reports about who will remain and what forces will be involved that convince me that we have, in fact, planned and talked. But the narrative must remain.; 1/3/19, 1:22 PM
tim in vermont said...: Right Mike, they engineered a puppet regime then stepped in when it was under threat. It’s the same technique they seem to be using against Ukraine. If you want the commies’ reasons though, I am sure Robert Cook will be along with an encyclopedic knowledge of their pretexts.

On the plus side, this has probably pleased Bernie Sanders. Did you know that bread lines were a good thing, because in the US, we just let our poor starve to death? Just ask Bernie.; 1/3/19, 1:22 PM
Kevin said...: Apparently, "Warren Takes Trump's Position on Afghanistan" was too difficult a headline for Reason to publish.; 1/3/19, 1:22 PM
MadisonMan said...: Senator Warren needs to keep her head stationary while she speaks.; 1/3/19, 1:23 PM
Drago said...: readering: "Stalin went into Poland in response to Hitler's invasion."

How is it possible to be this stupid?; 1/3/19, 1:24 PM
Kevin said...: Lots of reports about who will remain and what forces will be involved that convince me that we have, in fact, planned and talked. But the narrative must remain.

Assistant Secretary of State for Communications Lindsay Graham will be dining with Trump soon so he can explain he's now fine with it, but without going into details, for the White House Press Corps.; 1/3/19, 1:25 PM
Kevin said...: Senator Warren needs to keep her head stationary while she speaks.

Did you know there isn't an Elizabeth Warren bobblehead, but there is an Elizabeth Warren "action figure"?

And if that doesn't blow your mind, there is a NEW Post-Presidency Obama Action Figure as well.; 1/3/19, 1:29 PM
tim in vermont said...: Everybody knows that communism is a natural outgrowth of an Islamic mindset. No way that commie government was ordered up with a phone call to the KGB. Or maybe the KGB was like our CIA, and they acted on their own for their own political interests.; 1/3/19, 1:31 PM
Kevin said...: It's Soviet propaganda seems to be a kneejerk reaction.

"It's Soviet propaganda" is all most people need to know to handle any pesky discussions at the office coffee pot.

More information just leads to trouble, making it harder to get their afternoon cup of joe while maintaining their aura of moral superiority.; 1/3/19, 1:32 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Below is from an ABC new report in 2014 so not sure why you are so sure Trump is wrong:

"For the last 12 years, U.S. Special Operations forces have repeatedly engaged in fierce combat in Afghanistan against ruthless Taliban allies from Chechnya, who have the same pedigree as their terrorist brethren threatening to disrupt the Winter Olympics in Russia, current and former commandos tell ABC News.

"I'd say Chechens were a fair percentage of the overall enemy population early in Operation Enduring Freedom," recalled an active-duty senior Special Operations officer, referring to the Pentagon's name for the Afghan war, in which he was among the first ground operatives.

Since the U.S. war in Afghanistan began after September 11, elite U.S. troops' border battles with Chechen jihadis based in Pakistan's tribal safe havens have mostly stayed hidden in the shadows of a clandestine conflict. Special Operations missions are classified secret by default and rarely publicized."

IMO, it's not a leap of faith to assume the crazy Chechynans were fighting as terrorists in Afgnaistan in the 1990's vs Russia.; 1/3/19, 1:47 PM
MikeR said...: It would have been fun if Maddow had followed up, So you're saying that Donald Trump did exactly the right thing, correct?
But she is not capable of saying that.
Sen. Warren, you do remember that Pres. Obama was the one who greatly increased our footprint in Afghanistan? It was the "right war".
Not capable of that either.; 1/3/19, 1:49 PM
MikeR said...: It would have been fun if Maddow had followed up, So you're saying that Donald Trump did exactly the right thing, correct?
But she is not capable of saying that.
Sen. Warren, you do remember that Pres. Obama was the one who greatly increased our footprint in Afghanistan? It was the "right war".
Not capable of that either.; 1/3/19, 1:49 PM
Patrick said...: Brazen Whiter Ale.; 1/3/19, 1:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Almost forgotten is how close the Iranians came to invading the Soviet embassy instead of the U.S. embassy. The decision was based on Iranian belief that such an act of war would have resulted in immediate Soviet retaliation, perhaps nuclear retaliation. We may not be able to prove whether the invasion of Afghanistan was related to terrorism or whether it was just Soviet propaganda, but understand that the terrorists were at least thinking along those lines. Is Trump right? Maybe. Is is nuts? No.; 1/3/19, 1:53 PM
C Hayes said...: I'm so sick of these leftist, brainless women. Congress, The View, almost every TV show. Their arguments are shallow, facile and self serving. All citizens, i mean "residents", are babies and cannot pay their own way or work thru legal processes or social situations in life (healthcare, citizenship, keeping their pants on). It's like they don't understand that successful parenting is not how many kids you have, it's how many adults you raise.
God forbid we have a serious conservative woman somewhere, or they'll get the "Palin Treatment" (aka, the "Mean Girl" treatment). Don't want to be a polemicist like Coulter, because while she's often correct, the turns many people off with her presentation.
BTW, i am a 51 y.o. woman, who is really starting to despise her fellow women.; 1/3/19, 1:54 PM
bagoh20 said...: Everybody knows there have never been any terrorists in Afghanistan. They just don't like the place. Something about the lack of 24 hour liquor stores.; 1/3/19, 1:56 PM
C Hayes said...: sorry, that was off topic, kind of. but i can't believe that ANY WOMAN ANYWHERE could take Warren seriously, based on her giant, fraudulent lie of being Native American. And like when Obama was President, NOBODY CARES!!; 1/3/19, 1:56 PM
Gunner said...: I would rather be ruled by Russian Commies than boy-fucking cavemen, so maybe the Afghanistan-Soviet War wasn't so evil after all.; 1/3/19, 1:59 PM
Robert Cook said...: "The same kind of people who told us during the Cold War how the Russians loved their children too...."

Well...of course they do! Do you think otherwise?; 1/3/19, 2:03 PM
tim maguire said...: I like what I hear from Warren on Syria and Afghanistan. It doesn't seperate her from Trump so it won't swing my vote, but if she swings it on some other issue, this won't swing it back.; 1/3/19, 2:06 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: The Boston Marathon bombers were Chechynans.; 1/3/19, 2:06 PM
Achilles said...: The leftists are just fake dishonest people.; 1/3/19, 2:08 PM
Known Unknown said...: "When did Reason magazine turn into such a bunch of war mongering neocons?"

Reason sucks. Used to be a decent place but I was part of the Great Commenter Exodus of 2016 to Glibertarians.; 1/3/19, 2:11 PM
Robert Cook said...: "I would rather be ruled by Russian Commies...."

Too late. Russian communism has long been defunct.; 1/3/19, 2:11 PM
~ Gordon Pasha said...: It'd be nice if politicians had a grasp of Central Asian history. Start with The Great Game. If nothing else Kim and Flashman would give them some background on what has been going on there for what seems like forever. The animosities are always the same, only the names of the governments change.; 1/3/19, 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Short answer from Warren. "Yes Trump is doing the right thing in both Syria and Afghanistan." Unspoken: " I agree with President Trump that we should not intervene militarily where we do not have a clear national interest and if we do we should have clear goals, objectives and time frames."

Amazing from such a lefty, but commonsensical. Would that the MSM and the "foreign policy establishment" were as honest on this issue.; 1/3/19, 2:20 PM
mandrewa said...: The Communist Party in Afghanistan was probably closely linked to and even directed by the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. One might argue that Afghanistan had been annexed or taken over by the Soviet Union when the government of Afghanistan became Communist.

But it really depends on just how much influence the Soviet Union had on the Communist Party in Afghanistan. Was the Communist Party in Afghanistan independent or was it just a projection of Soviet power into its neighbor?

Regardless of the real independence of the Afghan government, opponents to the government of Afghanistan are likely to have perceived it as an agent of the Soviet Union, and thus it's conceivable they did target the Soviet Union with terrorism.

But then how does one distinguish terrorists coming from Afghanistan (or Pakistan) from native Islamic terrorism given that twenty to thirty percent of the Soviet population was Muslim?

I believe that the Soviet army would have been in Afghanistan regardless.; 1/3/19, 2:22 PM
stevew said...: So, if we leave Afghanistan what is the over under on the time till Russian returns?

FYI: I'm not arguing that we should stay.; 1/3/19, 2:26 PM
Qwinn said...: It's amazing. For the first 40 years of my life, I accurately responded to a great nunber of leftist talking points (the CIA created the crack epidemic! The US staged a coup in country X! Fracking pollutes ground water!) as "It's Russian propaganda." For this, I waz routinely scorned. "The 80s called, har har BURN!" Now, suddenly, magically, as of October 2016, every single bad thing and incorrect statement is dismissed as Soviet Propaganda by the exact same people who did the mocking.

And yet the Left continues to dance to the zombie memes of dead tyrants. Not one of the vast number of lefty beliefs that were spawned by Soviet propaganda has been overturned by the remarkable finding that Soviet propaganda is everywhere.; 1/3/19, 2:27 PM
Anonymous said...: I must repeat what a farce it is for the politicians to say "there is no plan". The C-inC issues the order, his subordinates issue the plans to implement that order. The President's order will be carried out or heads- like Mattis'- will roll.

The latest news from Syria is that both the Saudis and the Egyptians have had military planners working with the American contingent so their troops can replace US troops as they withdraw. Part of that planning includes the coordination of intelligence and air support (our critical contribution) which will not be withdrawn.; 1/3/19, 2:27 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/3/19, 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: @stevew Russia could not get out of Afghanistan fast enough once they figured out they could not win. They will not return to Afghanistan. There is absolutely no geographic/military risk to Russia from Afghanistan. They will happily let the Iranians and Pakis deal with the mess on their borders.

There is a reason that Afghanistan is called "The graveyard of Empires."; 1/3/19, 2:34 PM
Bilwick said...: Not defending it; but it's the kind of thing "liberals" would have said at one time, before the Hive changed the party-line to, "It's okay to hate Russia now." (Or at least pretend to.); 1/3/19, 2:39 PM
cubanbob said...: Robert Cook said...
"I would rather be ruled by Russian Commies...."

Too late. Russian communism has long been defunct.:

Thank the Lord and Ronald Reagan for that.

In 1942 we made a pact with the evil Soviet Union to eliminate the even more evil Nazi Germany. Then in 1990 with the help of the evil Muslim terrorists we got rid of the more evil Soviet Union. Today with the tacit help of the Russians we are working to eliminate the evil Muslim terrorists. Slowly but surely we are going down the line successfully. ISIS is shrinking, Iran is tottering and once we get back to butcher and bolt in Afghanistan when needed Pakistan will totter after Iran starts to collapse. So far, Trump has been right.; 1/3/19, 2:40 PM
n.n said...: In terms of numbers, the National Socialists were second to the Soviet Socialists were second to the Chinese Communists, and the Hutu-Tutsi cycles of retributive change were somewhere in between. The National Socialists had a final solution, while we have a wicked solution. The Chinese Communists had one-child, while we have selective-child. The National Socialists had "Jew privilege", while we have "White privilege", and other forms of rabid diversity.; 1/3/19, 2:52 PM
mandrewa said...: The strategic purpose of 9/11 was to get the United States stuck in Afghanistan. It was so obvious. The cookie trail we were intended to follow led straight to Afghanistan.

I was hoping and praying we would not take the bait.

The reasons our enemies wanted us in Afghanistan were obvious: a) as a landlocked country surrounded by countries that are not our friends, there is hardly any place in the world that is more expensive for the US military to operate in; b) it was one of the most primitive, backward, alien (from an American perspective), war-loving cultures in the world; and c) even if by some miracle we somehow 'won' it didn't matter.

We have lost a fortune (and many lives) to no real purpose except pride.; 1/3/19, 2:58 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: readering:

Stalin went into Poland in response to Hitler's invasion. What's so disturbing about approving Hitler's invasion of Poland?

Wait, whaaaat? They'd agreed beforehand on exactly how they were going to carve Poland up! It was only "in response" in the sense that it was the agreed-upon signal for two thugs to descend on their victim. Are you trolling us here?

The USSR was one of the aggressor powers in WWII. In both theatres, actually. They invaded Finland, forcibly annexed the Baltic Republics, carved off a piece of Roumania, detached Outer Mongolia from China, and were in the process of setting up a puppet regime in Xinjiang when their onetime ally Nazi Germany invaded them, and their puppet killed all his Soviet handlers.

Re: AJ Lynch:

IMO, it's not a leap of faith to assume the crazy Chechynans were fighting as terrorists in Afgnaistan in the 1990's vs Russia.

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 (I was going to say 1980, but Wikipedia tells me the invasion started December 1979 . . .). The puppet government they had installed was begging them for intervention, as Mike Sylvester notes above, and was dealing with terrorist attacks, but I don't think there were terrorist attacks spilling across the border into the USSR proper. Trump is probably just confusing the bestial Chechnyan terrorist attacks of the 1990's and 2000's with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (i.e. he is wrong).; 1/3/19, 3:08 PM
rhhardin said...: I always heard warm water port as the reason.; 1/3/19, 3:09 PM
John Pickering said...: Ann, of course no one is defending Trump's statement, because it's stupid and it's wrong, thus entirely typical of the garbage that comes out of his little brain and his disgusting mouth.
Alas, Ann loves Trump and believes him to be an honest, learned, decent and fair-minded man, not to mention personally charming and of course incredibly witty and fun. Ann's always baffled by people who point out that the president is not only a serial pervert, adulterer and sex criminal, but also a fraud expert, a multiple bankrupt, a con man and liar, a cheat and a money launderer for organized criminals both in the U.S. and abroad. Not only that, but Ann's completely nonplussed by evidence that he and his campaign conspired with and took bribes from foreign countries in exchange for favors in office, meaning that the president is something ranging from the dupe, to the stooge, to the actual witting agent of Russian state, intelligence and organized crime interests. That's OK with Ann and her Russian bot readers, locked behind the front door, afraid of the brown people. These new brown women like AOC in the House, I mean -- really petrifying!

Lots of media are discussing Trump's ridiculous view about the history of Soviet Union, but I couldn't find anything on Powerline or in the Daily Mail. Here's The Atlantic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/trump-just-endorsed-ussrs-invasion-afghanistan/579361/; 1/3/19, 3:10 PM
rhhardin said...: It's only recently that a theory has developed for why you can't build Western democracies just anywhere; the old regimes are stable systems and to break them you have to pay off all the people who are being paid off now to refrain from violence, in proportion to how much violence they could unleash if not paid off.

The typical payoff is exclusive control of this or that aspect of trade. So that's a problem right away for western style stuff.

An additional theory is that the people are not smart enough there to manage a democracy.; 1/3/19, 3:12 PM
Two-eyed Jack said...: The very purpose of Afghanistan was to keep Russia away from India. In the scramble for control of Central Asia, when the Russians took control of the flatter Stans, the British tried to take the lands to the Northwest of India, but found that they could not control them with a few thousand troops, the way they could control India. They retreated and literally drew the maps for Afghanistan, including a 10 mile wide extension to the borders of China, so that there would be no Russian Empire/Indian border.

The Russians in the 70's (Soviets we called them) aligned themselves with India to some extent, with the US aligning with Pakistan. Seeing weakness in Afghanistan, they set up a pro-soviet government, but this faltered. They chose to move in, with the intension of stabilizing Afghanistan and pressing Pakistan. It did not go well.; 1/3/19, 3:16 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: rhhardin:

It's only recently that a theory has developed for why you can't build Western democracies just anywhere; the old regimes are stable systems and to break them you have to pay off all the people who are being paid off now to refrain from violence, in proportion to how much violence they could unleash if not paid off.

The critical thing for democracy is that when people lose, they have to accept that they've lost and sit tight for the next few years until there's another election. That basic compact has eroded, obviously, in the United States (vs. Trump) and Britain (vs. Brexit), but we've seen prominent instances in the third world where people who had previously had a semblance of democracy are rejecting that basic principle, e.g. the Ukraine (the Maidan movement). The other thing is that you have to have confidence that the elected government isn't going to use its power to persecute its opponents (because if it is, you won't accept the results of the election as legitimate).

The actions of the Moon Jae-in regime, in South Korea, give me particular concern here, since he has been going after political opponents very aggressively, jailing both former presidents, and arresting senior officials of the preceding administration. The impeachment of the former president, Park Geun-hye, in response to mass protests, points to a breakdown in democratic norms similar to what we saw in the Ukraine, though (thankfully) not quite as bad. The Obama administration was pretty weak re: upholding democratic norms (we were basically cheerleaders for the mess in the Ukraine), and Trump isn't any better.; 1/3/19, 3:24 PM
J. Farmer said...: Trump is confused. Yes, the Soviets have had problems with Islamic terrorism. It was not the reason for the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. It was not even claimed so at the time. The Soviets were following a strategy that had been articulated by Brezhnev nearly a decade earlier. The US, of course, knew that a Soviet invasion was a possibility and perhaps took steps to actively encourage it. The latter point is somewhat controversial. In any event, the US saw the Soviet invasion as an opportunity to bog them down in Afghanistan and "give them their Vietnam War," in the words of Brzezinski.; 1/3/19, 3:25 PM
gilbar said...: Qwinn,
{repectfully,} you're missing the distinction. the russians (now) and the soviets aren't the same.

saying things like 'the cia created the crack epidemic' were soviet proganda was scorned by people here (the left), that were owned and operated by the soviets.

saying things like 'trump is owned by the russians!' is supported by the the people here (the left) that were owned and operated by the soviets. Russia is NO LONGER soviet, and thus: IT IS EVIL according to our left. Want a reference?

Robert Cook said... Too late. Russian communism has long been defunct.

people that were owned and operated by the soviets, do NOT approve of the new Russia...
Do you Robert?; 1/3/19, 3:27 PM
gilbar said...: i'm sure i was clear;
Commies (like Robert?) HATE RUSSIA on account of because russia is apostate; it has forsaken the true Red Religion; 1/3/19, 3:29 PM
Jim at said...: 1/3/19, 3:10 PM

There are 362 days left in the year, yet it'll be tough to top the stupidity of that post.; 1/3/19, 3:29 PM
wildswan said...: "The animosities are always the same, only the names of the governments change."

My view exactly. The solution in Afghanistan is to leave after awhile and don't attack the Moslem religion while you are there. History is like a long cool drink on a hot afternoon.; 1/3/19, 3:34 PM
Mark said...: "The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there."

"Russia" was not in Afghanistan. It was the Soviet Union that invaded Afghanistan. And it did so for the same reason that that evil empire invaded elsewhere - to subjugate the people.

As for why WE are there -- we are fighting the enemy there so that we don't need to fight them (as much) here. We are there because the Islamic enemy is as evil as the Soviets were before them.

If Trump is going to go around like some Dem or brain-dead, amoral libertarian, then maybe he doesn't want a second term after all.; 1/3/19, 3:35 PM
gilbar said...: i'll try to wrap this up...
i mean no disrespect to Robert (i Really Don't!)
Robert is an intelligent and thinking person, NOT just a parrot of left wing talking points.

I just mean that Robert is a card carrying communist; which means (meant) that he would at the beck and call of his soviet masters (for the greater good of advancing the worldwide communist revolution); 1/3/19, 3:35 PM
Wince said...: Every time I see Elizabeth Warren's smile, it makes me think of... this, and it brings up questions.

Howie Carr...

This, from a fake Indian who was paid $350,000 to teach one class at Harvard Law School. Who got a zero-interest loan from Harvard to buy her $3-million mansion on Linnaean Street in Cambridge. Who in her first campaign exhorted her supporters to talk her up with the people “standing behind you at the cheese shop.” Who, when asked by a slobbering acolyte on MSNBC if she owned stock, replied, “No, only mutual funds.”; 1/3/19, 3:36 PM
rcocean said...: Once again we get two Trump sentences clipped out of 30 minute press conference. Can we get some context?

Do people understand the difference between the USSR and Russa? Do they understand that Russia (not USSR) was still in Afghanistan after 1989?

Besides, Trump's whole point is the USSR turned into Russia - in part -because of its endless war in Afghanistan.

That any LEFTIST - that won't criticize Castro's Cuba or Red China - is upset that Trump "spewed Soviet propaganda" is insane!; 1/3/19, 3:42 PM
rcocean said...: Reason magazine has turned into a left-wing freak show. Meanwhile National Review has turned into the OLD Reason Magazine.

Who knew all these people were frauds, before Trump ripped off their masks?; 1/3/19, 3:44 PM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: RAchel Maddow is such a hack.

I'll give credit to Warren here. But Rachel is 100% Clinton hack. Finger in the wind journolist.; 1/3/19, 3:51 PM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: Warren agrees with Trump on troop withdrawal in Syria.

Warren disagrees with Hillary and Maddow on this issue.; 1/3/19, 3:51 PM
tim in vermont said...: The “warm water port” thing makes a certain amount of sense when you look at where they stood in WWII and how difficult they found it to project power on the same scale as tiny Britain, for example, or tiny Japan. Never mind the United States. The naval powers have dominated the globe for centuries, even tiny Holland has left its mark.; 1/3/19, 3:51 PM
tim in vermont said...: Somebody should ask Hillary again why she thought that sending weapons in was a good idea, and what her long term objective was in exacerbating that civil war? If it was the destabilzation of the EU, good job girl!; 1/3/19, 3:53 PM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: Hillary does everything with the idea that is will ultimately pay off for the Clintons.; 1/3/19, 3:54 PM
tim in vermont said...: Mexico never accomplished much as a naval power though, even with all of their warm weather ports, so I guess there must be more to it than that.; 1/3/19, 3:54 PM
tim in vermont said...: Blogger Gunner said...
I would rather be ruled by Russian Commies than boy-fucking cavemen, so maybe the Afghanistan-Soviet War wasn't so evil after all.

Not me, at least the boy fucking cave men will let me have a weapon and defend myself. They never had the kind of organization that the Soviets had for dealing out death on a massive scale.; 1/3/19, 3:58 PM
Ron Winkleheimer said...: "The same kind of people who told us during the Cold War how the Russians loved their children too...."

Well...of course they do! Do you think otherwise?

Sure they love their kids. So what? If I'm one of the 100+ million people who was killed due to communism I'm sure my last thought would be, "hey, at least my murderer loves his kids."

Putz; 1/3/19, 4:09 PM
Two-eyed Jack said...: TiV said "The “warm water port” thing makes a certain amount of sense when you look at where they stood in WWII . . ."

Except the "water" part. Look at a map and explain how Kabul helps get to a "warm water port." American supply in Afghanistan has always been limited by difficulty in getting to any decent port and has relied on staging in Central Asia.

No disrespect held, but this just doesn't hold water.; 1/3/19, 4:09 PM
narciso said...: if one has read sebestyen's 1989, he clearly points out the quagmire in Afghanistan, as the first domino, the solidarnosc revolt in Gdansk as the second, now from all indication, the assassination of taraki amin, was as dangerous for them, as us having ngo diem murdered,; 1/3/19, 4:24 PM
tim in vermont said...: No disrespect held, but this just doesn't hold water.

Brezhnev was a dreamer. Iraq was a Soviet client.; 1/3/19, 4:30 PM
Lydia said...: Ronald Reagan's Statement on the Seventh Anniversary of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan:

Seven years ago, on December 27, 1979, the world awoke to find that the Soviet Army had invaded its nonaligned, independent neighbor, Afghanistan. This stark act of aggression shattered many illusions about the Soviet Union. The murder of then-President Hafizullah Amin by invading Soviet forces quickly dispelled the Soviet claim that a limited contingent of Soviet troops, currently numbering 116 - 118,000 troops, was invited into Afghanistan by a friendly government. The Afghan people did not invite the Soviets to bomb and burn their villages, to maim and orphan their children, to rewrite their history, and to spurn their religion and culture. They did not invite the Soviets to destroy their fields and lay waste to vast portions of their country.

That, in the face of this brutal onslaught, the Afghan people still refuse to surrender is evidence that freedom cannot be bought, stolen, or wrenched from those determined to defend it. But the Afghan people alone cannot hope to defeat Soviet power. They need the support of governments and peoples everywhere. The Soviets must be made to understand that they will continue to pay a higher and higher price until they accept the necessity for a political solution involving the prompt withdrawal of their forces from Afghanistan and self-determination for the Afghan people.

Last month 122 nations joined together in a resounding endorsement of a U.N. resolution calling for a political settlement predicated on the prompt and complete withdrawal of Soviet troops. If the Soviets truly want peace, let them present at Geneva a realistic timetable for the withdrawal of their troops from Afghanistan. The United States, which has always supported a negotiated political solution to the war in Afghanistan, will place no barriers in the Soviets' way should they decide to negotiate seriously an end to their occupation of Afghanistan. But empty gestures, such as the talk about peace and a settlement and sham ``withdrawal'' in October of a few Soviet regiments, will not bring an end to the killing and destruction. Only a comprehensive settlement which ensures genuine independence, nonalignment, and the safe and honorable return of refugees can bring about the process of national reconciliation and the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

As long as the Soviets and their Afghan surrogates continue to wage a war which threatens extermination of an entire people, that people will have the support of the international community -- and our support -- for their resistance. The tragedy in Afghanistan makes it clear that none of us can take our own freedom for granted. All free nations must do what they can to preserve liberty from assault. Let us pledge at this joyless anniversary marking 7 years of Soviet occupation to renew our efforts in seeking together a free and independent Afghanistan and peace on Earth.; 1/3/19, 4:33 PM
ken in tx said...: One thing I remember about the Soviet/Afghanistan conflict was that the Soviets and/or their in-country allies were known to strew booby trapped toys around opposition villages. This resulted in many child casualties. They also took child hostages and sent them to boarding schools in Russia. Some of the reasons many Afghans don't like Russians.; 1/3/19, 4:33 PM
tim in vermont said...: Brezhnev probably had little idea of how much oil Mother Russia was already sitting on, and the ability to choke the west on oil was certainly a large strategic inducement.

Thanks to Dick Cheney and his oil industry meetings, we live in a different world now. We can’t be choked for oil by shutting down the Straits of Hormuz, though our allies wouldn’t like it. The problem is that these games are never over, the struggle never ends.; 1/3/19, 4:35 PM
tim in vermont said...: One thing I remember about the Soviet/Afghanistan conflict was that the Soviets and/or their in-country allies were known to strew booby trapped toys around opposition villages.

American propaganda!; 1/3/19, 4:36 PM
tim in vermont said...: But yeah, the warm water port seems like a stretch.; 1/3/19, 4:38 PM
Robert Cook said...: "I just mean that Robert is a card carrying communist;"

Hahahaha!; 1/3/19, 4:52 PM
Robert Cook said...: Hmmm...

Reagan's speech could be applied to the U.S., given our unwarranted invasion and nearly 20 years' presence in the country.; 1/3/19, 4:54 PM
Robert Cook said...: In other words, the Afghanis fighting the invaders of their country remain "freedom fighters!"; 1/3/19, 4:55 PM
Earnest Prole said...: Today Trump predicted he and Nancy Pelosi would pass an infrastructure spending bill together, despite that we're running budget deficits that would make even Barack Obama blush like a schoolgirl. So all this practice defending Trump when he spouts lefty talking points should come in handy the next few months.; 1/3/19, 5:22 PM
Skeptical Voter said...: Well I did get one good nugget from all this back and forth above. C. Hayes (who identifies herself as a 51 year old woman) said, people don't realize that successful parenting is not based on the number of children you have, but rather the number of adults you raise.

That's a thought worth remembering. These days a lot of parents seem to be less than successful--but the snowflakes keep piling up.

As for why the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 or so, that's really a historical "why did the chicken cross the road" question. They did it because that is what they historically have done--for much of the last 300 plus years. If it wasn't the Tsarist Russkis, it was the Brits--each playing The Great Game and duking it out for control of the region. The stated reason doesn't matter much---propping up a failing Communist regime; fighting Islam terror whether Chechnayan or otherwise--to keep the Brits out--the list goes on. But in the end, they did it because that's what they do--and have done.

The real problem for both the Brits and the Russkis (and for that matter, the Americans) is that most of that part of the world is intensely tribal. They like their tribe---and hate the next tribe over. But all tribes will combine to throw the non Afghanis out.; 1/3/19, 5:24 PM
Big Mike said...: Trump's policies, all of them, so far, seem to boil down to this: America and Americans first.

Where have I heard Trump say that? Oh, yeah! His inaugural address! It’s not as though he didn’t tell us what was coming.; 1/3/19, 5:37 PM
Static Ping said...: I remember the warm water port explanation when I was in school. The Soviets and before them the Tsars would find a warm water port useful. The Baltic Sea freezes to some extent and the exit is blocked by the Danish straits which can put the navy in a situation where it cannot exit. The White Sea is damn cold. Vladivostok ices up, though to a manageable extent, and it is far away from the main part of the country. The Black Sea does not have an ice problem, but there's nowhere to go if Turkey cuts off access and trying to force the Bosporus and Dardanelles is not an easy task.

The thing is there is really no place to get a secure warm water port without aggressive expansion. In Europe, they would pretty much have to conquer Istanbul and/or a good section of the Balkans to do so, or perhaps conquer Germany or Denmark. It is somewhat ironic that the two European communist countries that had access to the Adriatic, Yugoslavia and Albania, both were alienated from the Soviets. And even with those ports they would have had to make a run past Gibraltar or conquer the Suez Canal to get out of the Med. Trying to expand into the Middle East would be a mess, whether they tried to annex the Levant (which has the same Med/Suez problem) or tried to conquer Iran (good luck with that), or Pakistan or India or perhaps even both (even better luck with that). In the east would require invading China, which means they probably fight Red China and NATO at the same time. No matter where they go there is going to be a major war.

I'm still not sure how Afghanistan gets the Soviets anywhere. They still have to conquer a major country, which certainly would cause a larger war, and they would have to supply themselves through Afghanistan at least somewhat, which is difficult terrain filled with people who want to kill you. My suspicion is the Soviets would take communist expansion wherever they could get it and Afghanistan seemed easy enough at the time.; 1/3/19, 5:51 PM
tim in vermont said...: In other words, the Afghanis fighting the invaders of their country remain "freedom fighters!"

Yeah, map them to Star Wars and they are the good guys.; 1/3/19, 5:55 PM
narciso said...: they wanted to reclaim Afghanistan, and move against what they considered a belligerent islamist state in Pakistan, from there, they probably sought to try topple the kingdom, by attacking it's soft underbelly in yemen, or at the very least blocking access from the red sea, and or the straights of hormuz; 1/3/19, 5:55 PM
Static Ping said...: I should also mention here that at one time parts of Afghanistan were major trading centers on the Silk Road. Places like Herat were quite important. When the trade became mostly maritime based, they became significantly less important, like much of Central Asia. (Also, the Mongols killed just about everyone in Central Asia, though they did rebuild much of it.) It is somewhat difficult to comprehend how glorious major cities of a millennium ago are of minor importance now. On the plus side the city is still there which cannot be said of some of its ancient neighbors.; 1/3/19, 5:58 PM
Sebastian said...: "They were right"

No, they weren't.; 1/3/19, 6:03 PM
Molly said...: (eaglebeak)

The Soviets went into Afghanistan at the end of 1979--the beginning of which year had been highlighted by Khomeini's seizure of power in Iran.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's whacky National Security Adviser, had a theory about the "arc of crisis" -- an arc of Islamic countries surrounding and menacing the Soviet Union -- and the Soviets felt the menace, and were trying to make very sure Iran didn't come after them; the Afghanistan operation was part of their effort to control the Islamic wild men on their borders.

Of course, after the Soviets took over Afghanistan and installed Najibullah and a Marxist governmet, the U.S. funded and armed the mujaheddin to fight the Soviets. The mujaheddin -- the Taliban -- took Kabul in 1996 and hanged Najibullah, who had been living in Kabul in the UN headquarters after his communist government collapsed with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Don't know how much of this Trump knows, but John Bolton probably told him all about how the U.S., starting with Brzezinski and continuing to the present, has had a lot of stupid ideas about Afghanistan, the famous "graveyard of empires" ...; 1/3/19, 6:06 PM
Quaestor said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/3/19, 6:18 PM
MadTownGuy said...: "Soviet" as describing the Russian Federation is a bit inaccurate. There is a legislative body called the Soviet of the Federation (Сове́т Федера́ции) but the old Soviet Union is no more.; 1/3/19, 6:20 PM
Quaestor said...: ...but I don't think there were terrorist attacks spilling across the border into the USSR proper.

Much of the spillage was going the other way. The Taliban (i.e. "the Students") was from the start a religious and tribal movement (more tribal than religious, btw) and not a nationalistic or even strictly political phenomenon. Understanding the history of Afghanistan begins with understanding Afghan tribalism. Here's a clue — when the United States intervened in the Soviet-Afghan war we did it by supplying arms to the "rebels", i.e. the Taliban and others, a loose confederacy of southern Afghan tribes who also have familial and tribal ties to northern Pakistan, the so-called Federally Administered Tribal Areas recently disbanded and merged into the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. When we invaded Afghanistan in response to Bin Laden's attacks we did so with the support of Tajikistan, which allowed our air operations the use of the Dushanbe airport. Furthermore, our in-country "allies" were the Northern Alliance, a group of largely Uzbek tribes (Uzbeks are about 14% of the population of Tajikistan, surprise, surprise) who were the beneficiaries of the Soviet-sponsored government in Kabul prior to the take-over of Afghanistan by the American-sponsored rebels who were also largely the Taliban. The Uzbeks lost control of their poppy fields and access to the lucrative export routes to Pakistan and Iran, hence their willingness to cooperate with an invading force opposed to their southern rivals, the hosts of Osama bin Laden, btw, who first came to the attention of the CIA as a war tourist from Saudi Arabia associated with the Kandahar madras. Rumor has it that it was Bin Laden who advised the Americans that though the Taliban were grateful for the guns and were happy to use them on the Russians, they hated American infidels as passionately as they hated Communist infidels and would use those guns on Americans when they ran out of Russians to kill.

Young Uzbeks from Tajikistan often crossed the border to assist their relations against the rebels, and revenge raids into Tajikistan happened often enough to make the Tajik ruling class amenable to our post-9/11 blandishments

The best and brightest who have dominated U.S. foreign policy, especially in the questionable lands east of the Mediterranean, since 1961 have had no appreciation of the byzantine tribal/religious politics which seem so incomprehensible to us. However, from the point of view of the typical Afghan, a person whose ignorance of the world beyond his native valley would shock even the most jaded American (i.e. most people in Portland, Oregon) it is American politics that are incomprehensible. He finds it inexplicable that America is now allied with the Uzbeks, their principal enemy in the Reagan-era, and opposed to the southern tribes, their former principal ally. He sees the contradiction as perverse and satanic.

(reposted with typos fixed); 1/3/19, 6:21 PM
Quaestor said...: No, they weren't.

Obviously, Sebastian came here for an argument.

(BING!)

Good morning.; 1/3/19, 6:30 PM
gilbar said...: Robert Cook said...
"I just mean that Robert is a card carrying communist;"
Hahahaha!

Really Robert? I didn't think i was putting words into your mouth; you don't identify as a communist?; 1/3/19, 6:31 PM
Quaestor said...: Hahahaha!

By that, Robert Cook means he does not actually carry a card.; 1/3/19, 6:39 PM
Lydia said...: Interesting timing -- from a month ago, "Defying history, Moscow moves to defend Soviet war in Afghanistan":

It has been said that Russia is a country with an unpredictable past, as every new government tries to rewrite the historical narrative for its political advantage. In this, President Vladimir Putin’s regime has been particularly active, launching a wholesale rehabilitation of the Soviet period early on. (One of Putin’s first acts in office was restoring the Stalin-era national anthem.)

Last month, Russian lawmakers took another big step in the same direction by approving a draft resolution that seeks to justify the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. The formal vote on the measure — proposed jointly by lawmakers from the United Russia and Communist parties — will be held before the 30th anniversary of the withdrawal of Soviet troops on Feb. 15. Hailing the decision, Communist lawmaker Nikolai Kharitonov called it a victory for “historical truth.”; 1/3/19, 6:48 PM
narciso said...: No he was affiliated with younis khalis of nangahar province, the God father of the taliban.; 1/3/19, 6:48 PM
Quaestor said...: Narciso, that was when Bin Ladin returned to Afghanistan in the 1990s to form Al Qaeda, wasn't it? There's no contradiction when the timeline is considered.; 1/3/19, 7:11 PM
narciso said...: No, this was back in the 80s, according to Steve colls account about the bin laden's and ghost wars previously.; 1/3/19, 7:28 PM
Matt Sablan said...: I feel this is an over simplification like "The War with Iraq was about WMDs!" It misses the fact that most actions, especially far-reaching political ones, often have MULTIPLE causes.; 1/3/19, 7:29 PM
gspencer said...: Wasn't her tossing back a beer both an insult and a temptation to Alcoholic Americans?; 1/3/19, 7:40 PM
MadisonMan said...: (BING!)

Good morning.

What? I was just getting interested! That was never 5 minutes!; 1/3/19, 7:45 PM
traditionalguy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/3/19, 7:52 PM
traditionalguy said...: The USSR went into Afghanistan to promote International Communist Revolution. Those guys surendered 1991 in to being looted by Bush family connected Capitalists. And the Bush family connections primarily wanted to continue and expand the profits from the International Cocaine and Heroin trade. That scam is as old as world trade with China itself. Check out the 1840-1860 Opium Wars where the Brits invaded China to establish their control over the profits from addicting the Chinese to heroin. That is always why we invade countries who have not attacked us.; 1/3/19, 7:53 PM
Robert Cook said...: "The USSR went into Afghanistan to promote International Communist Revolution."

Yeah, sure they didn't.; 1/3/19, 8:00 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Yeah, map them to Star Wars and they are the good guys."

And we, ergo, are the bad guys.; 1/3/19, 8:01 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Really Robert? I didn't think i was putting words into your mouth; you don't identify as a communist?"

No.; 1/3/19, 8:04 PM
Chuck said...: I’m not sure which is more inexplicable; Trump’s idiotic parroting of Soviet propaganda from the late 1970’s, or Althouse’s weirdly oblique blog post for today.

Anyway, if you want some readable clarity on the Soviets’ actions and motives from the time in question, here is the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board to remind you about that as they rip into Trump.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-cracked-afghan-history-11546560234

The question for you Althouse is what did you not get about this? If your starting point is, “of course Trump was wrong and no one is defending what he said,” well then, uh, okay. What else have you got on this? If your point is an attempt at claiming that Trump didn’t mean what he said, and/or didn’t really mean what the clear import of his words were communicating, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate your relationship with Trump’s rhetoric.; 1/3/19, 8:12 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/3/19, 8:18 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Today Trump predicted he and Nancy Pelosi would pass an infrastructure spending bill together, despite that we're running budget deficits that would make even Barack Obama blush like a schoolgirl. So all this practice defending Trump when he spouts lefty talking points should come in handy the next few months.”

I suspect that Limbaugh and Ann Coulter will wag their tongues at him and he will behave himself. Or maybe they only hate brown people and not huge deficits.; 1/3/19, 8:19 PM
narciso said...: So chuck what do you think we accomplish in afghaniatan that we couldn't do with up to 150,000 troops that we could with 17,000 after 17 years.; 1/3/19, 8:20 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: Whatever would Trump do without his translators?; 1/3/19, 8:25 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/3/19, 8:39 PM
Drago said...: Robert Cook doesnt identify as a communist.

LLR Chuck doesnt identify as a democrat.

Inga doesnt identify as a lefty loon.

You can see where this going.

LOL; 1/3/19, 8:56 PM
Paul said...: The way I look at it, we invaded Afghanistan cause the Taliban supported Al Qaeda. This was after 9/11 and Bush II decide to hit them.

Ok, we are there how many days? Let's see, Oct. 7, 2001 we attacked. It's now Jan, 2019.

So we have been there over SEVENTEEN YEARS!!!!!

You guys ever hear of the 30 years war? Or the 100 years war? Is this what we are doing, low level war for decades? For generations?

So our doing isn't doing it.. what do we do? Stay another 17 years? Afghanistan isn't Korea folks. No DMZ. No armistice..

Are we gonna put in 500,000 men? Million? Or we gonna kill whole towns in retaliation for terrorist activity? No?

Then it's time to get out.; 1/3/19, 8:59 PM
Howard said...: Drago doesnt identify as a Red Blooded American; 1/3/19, 9:02 PM
Drago said...: Paul: "Is this what we are doing, low level war for decades? For generations?"

Vichy republicans like LLR Chuck, who did not serve and passionately defended obamas lack of service and passionately defended Stolen Valor hack dem liar Blumenthal AND effusively praised Lil Dick "US Troops are gestapo" Durbin, will basically agree to anything the Europeans want us to do.

Literally anything....unless it helps America.; 1/3/19, 9:04 PM
Drago said...: Howard: "Drago doesnt identify as a Red Blooded American"

Its the grape popsicles.; 1/3/19, 9:05 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: Drago doesn’t identify as a propagandist, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t one.; 1/3/19, 9:13 PM
Howard said...: He's a poopagandist, Inga. He likes to fling it to see what sticks.; 1/3/19, 9:18 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: I think that Robert Cook learned how to "argue" from Noam Chomsky. Chomsky says things like "And of course, Henry Ford developed the technology to transport thousands of people to the concentration camps, and the State Department saw to it that the techology was transfered to the Germans in the 1930s."; 1/3/19, 10:03 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Is anyone defending Trump's statement?

Lol. You defend everything Drumpf sez and does. Or at least, the idea that there could be anything plausibly defensible to what he says and does. Which no one sane agrees with.; 1/3/19, 10:03 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Drago is a total partisan hack water-boy. If he thinks that rabidly foaming it from his mouth will help a Republican, he will spit it into the air like there's no tomorrow.

So like any Republican, he knows his party is fucked toast save how they cling with clenched fingernails onto Trump's coattails. Hence Drago is up Trump's butt so far deep and wide that you have to call him Drago McDougal. Drago will literally defend to the death any bullshit that Trump and Trump's party says - he's as loyal to him as the mistress who actually fell in love with him and thought his word was good and that she could mean something to him other than as a placeholder for his silly stupid toadstool-head dick.

Dickin' around is what Drumpf does. If Drumpf told Drago to open his buttcheeks for him, Drago would comply with a huge grin on his face. He would say, "Is this wide enough, Sir? I love you, Don Drumpf. Please make me your manservant in any way you see fit."

Drago McDougal and Don Drumpf. A match made in whore heaven. Pimp and ho and not just for show.

Republicans are the most debased and debauched species of human that exists. They really are missing some key features of the H. sapiens species.

Degenerates. Drumpf's Dizzy Degenerates. They are seriously missing a few million base pairs somewhere.

Republicattle.; 1/3/19, 10:10 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Stop bothering Drago. Can't you see he's busy lubricating his asshole and testing out how tightly it can grip around Don Drumpf's lopsided toadstool dick head?

That takes dedication.; 1/3/19, 10:17 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: That wasn't a rhetorical question, BTW.; 1/3/19, 10:17 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: There are massively successful Republican pundit strategists who are more honest than Drago.

They want to win. Drago just wants to be up Drumpf's butt.; 1/3/19, 10:21 PM
narciso said...: No that would be Edwin black and his tendentious attack on ibm.; 1/3/19, 10:22 PM
gadfly said...: Is anyone defending Trump's statement? I'd like to hear something substantial. It's Soviet propaganda seems to be a kneejerk reaction. I'm withholding judgment other than to say maybe Trump means "They were right" from their own perspective, taking their national interests seriously, which seems to be generally what he says other countries should be doing as he puts his own country's interests first.

“Russia used to be the Soviet Union. Afghanistan made it Russia, because they went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan,” Trump began. “The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there. The problem is, it was a tough fight. And literally they went bankrupt; they went into being called Russia again, as opposed to the Soviet Union. You know, a lot of these places you’re reading about now are no longer part of Russia, because of Afghanistan.”

Communism "did in" the USSR and and it continues to impede Russian economics. Who can forget Moscow's Central Planning that prescribed when and what would be planted by farmers and production planning in government industries? This tight control of such decisions allowed the powerful to prosper while the serfs assigned to collectives suffered.

Reagan's Star Wars bluff was the winning hand over Gorbachev's Perestroika and Cold War military spending spiral ended the non-shooting war after more than 40 years but Communists were still incharge in Russia. The Afghan War was but one complication that was dropped when cash couldn't be raised to pay soldiers.

Sadly we sent business experts to Russia and the rest of the USSR independents to revive their economies and now we are receiving Russian thanks in spades.; 1/3/19, 11:39 PM
gadfly said...: Blogger Spiros Pappas said...
Osama bin Laden went to Afghanistan to help finance and train fighters for the mujahideen.

Actually, bin Laden went to Afghanistan to find employment for his forlorn band of mujahideen. But according to Angelo Codevilla, "Arab fighters in general, and particularly the few Osama brought, fought rarely and badly. In war, one Afghan is worth many Arabs." Mujahideen is an Arab word meaning "guerrilla" and Afghanistan is a non-Arab country.; 1/4/19, 12:34 AM
Ajnal said...: Yes, knowledge and understanding of the world is over rated in a US President.; 1/4/19, 5:54 AM
Michael McNeil said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/4/19, 7:05 AM
Chuck said...: Blogger narciso said...
So chuck what do you think we accomplish in afghaniatan that we couldn't do with up to 150,000 troops that we could with 17,000 after 17 years.

I didn’t say anything about troop strength levels or strategic goals in Afghanistan. I think an interesting and productive debate could be had on those subjects. (Indeed I very much respect the general views of Senator Rand Paul; that we should never be in conflicts like Afghanistan without a Congressional declaration of war.). But an interesting discussion would never include Trump, as long as he is spouting revisionist/propagandist crap like what he said in that rant. Trump wasn’t being ridiculed for his policy so much as his weird incompetent butchering of objective history.; 1/4/19, 7:07 AM
Michael McNeil said...: Except the “water” part. Look at a map and explain how Kabul helps get to a “warm water port.”

That doesn't sound too hard — given an alternate history which wasn't realized on our timeline.

Background: The largest ethnic group in both Afghanistan and Pakistan are the Pashtuns. Taking figures from a decade ago (2008), there are some 31 million Pashtuns in Pakistan and 14 million in Afghanistan. Afghanistan in toto now has some 32 million people (as of 2018), so (naively combining those figures) some 44% of Afghanistan is Pashtun, making them by far the largest ethnic group. Indeed, an obsolete term for the Pashtuns was “Afghan” — they were regarded as being the ethnic Afghan people; that country's other (considerable) minorities there (mostly in the north) were considered extraneous.

Pakistan possesses even more Pashtuns — more than twice as many — but with a total population of 212 million people (2017 figure), it's only some 15% Pashtun altogether. However, territory-wise, Pashtuns constitute a large majority (3/4ths of the people speaking Pashto) in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province (prior to 2010 the North-West Frontier Province), bordering Afghanistan.

Anyway, the Soviet fever-dream empire-building scenario for this alternate-history 1970's Soviet Union (and world) would be that the USSR's communist-government ally in Afghanistan succeeds in politically coopting the Afghani Pashtuns — the core of that country — into a close partnership and alliance. Afghani Pashtuns then work hard bringing in their ethnic relations across the border, Pakistan's Pashtuns — who then wage terrorist war within their country to destabilize that nation — making it another ripe-fruit domino for the Soviets to pick up.

Voila! Russia's long-desired warm-water port.

Surely, at least some Soviet analysts entertained some such hypothesis, if not an actual plan.; 1/4/19, 7:12 AM
Drago said...: PPPT, Inga and LLR Chuck make a great team, dont they?; 1/4/19, 7:18 AM
Ajnal said...: Trump’s Cracked Afghan History: His falsehoods about allies and the Soviets reach a new low.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-cracked-afghan-history-11546560234; 1/4/19, 7:24 AM
Amadeus 48 said...: Bad Trump.; 1/4/19, 8:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Ajnal: As you've probably been told, we'd really welcome a better class of lefties around here. I know you're trying, but we don't need any more contenders whose talents are limited to breathless link-posting and drive-by pearl-clutching. We're full up on those.

If you post a link, tell us why you think the linked material is interesting. Don't just copy-paste, use it make a point or develop an argument. Otherwise, people just assume you're one of those lefty dummies, so thick on the grass here, who thinks he's blowing conservatives' minds with mere links to somebody's opinion somewhere.; 1/4/19, 8:48 AM
Ajnal said...: "Trump Golf Club Reportedly Hid Undocumented Workers from Secret Service"; 1/4/19, 8:53 AM
narciso said...: Hes not really interested in debate:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/decoding-trump.php; 1/4/19, 8:58 AM
WintersTale said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/4/19, 10:13 AM
TheThinMan said...: If I could get myself to read the Times these days, I would delight in the irony of what they must be saying about Trump's Afghanistan tweet. Because in the early 80s The New York Times would never refer to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan as such but with a straight face took up Pravda's propaganda terminology, calling it some kind of benign, defensive action . Although I was a Democrat at the time, this used to drive me nuts. I remember once reading on the same page a headline avoiding "USSR invasion" for a story on Afghanistan and a headline using "US invasion" for Reagan's military action that reversed the USSR's sudden take-over of Granada.; 1/5/19, 3:10 PM
TheThinMan said...: I searched The New York Times from the day after the Soviet invasion to four years later, and couldn't find the word "invasion." They always referred to it as an "intervention." If Trump is misinformed about what the Soviets did there, it's because he got his information from the Times and the rest of the mainstream media (which was the only media back then).; 1/5/19, 4:17 PM